masse24

Impossible! Phil has boasted of his expertise "in a voice of thunder" on this forum. To back out now would be too humiliating to fathom. Keep us posted as to time and date. :)

True, the flat shape is definitely worthy of a downgrade. 1NT seems right based on past statements. As PhilG007 states, "Points aren't everything"! ;)

Good humor! :D May I get a piece of the action?! Or better yet, recruit a random beginner from the BIL and duke it out in the money bridge room. It would make for a more evenly matched battle! We could even charge admission; maybe even raise a few bucks for charity. What the heck, I'm always willing to pay to see a good comedy act. :P

:blink: PhilG007 . . . 3NT is cold. 100%. Cannot go down. KT9x in either opponent's hand is is roughly 10%. It's never too late to develop "fancy footwork." Learn to dance. Out of morbid curiosity, what is your suggested (partscore) auction?

Megan, I don't consider it "standard" to jump to 3NT with 18-19. With 18-19, I prefer to rebid 2NT, (yes it can also show 12-14) intending to show the 18-19 hand with 4NT over partner's 3NT. The jump to 3NT being reserved for roughly 15-17 hands deemed inappropriate for a 1NT open. The 3NT jump also having two small cards in parter's suit. Standard? Heck if I know. I would be curious about how others play this 3NT jump. :)

I pass, allowing partner to describe his/her hand. Partner's redouble will show ♣A.

This: and this: = :blink: http://i58.tinypic.com/opa9l1.png I look forward to more responses like this.

I recently read a CSBNews article from 2013 on this topic. Link here: Leading Low From a Doubleton Honor Authored by Rixi Marcus, she writes: "This may well work better when the hand on your left is marked with strength in this suit, and especially when you have no re-entry to your hand." I found it interesting. :)

Not in love with a ♦. ♣K for me. I wanna be a hero! :D

RHO's 3♥ has probably tipped off partner to the probability of my void. While I am tempted to get fancy to also show my ♠ shortness (and power) with 4♠, I too think a "straightforward" 4♦ conveys plenty of information.

Like, um . . . your partner?! This was my point as well, and is why my earlier "guess" at partner's hand lacked a keycard. Of course, the OP stated that partner holds both a key and the trump Q. I do, however, find 4NT far easier to bid "knowing" the responses in advance. ;) Partner has trash because he said so. Any action I might take subsequent to a 4NT ask is immaterial since the auction stops at 4♠.

Yet partner failed to offer even a non-serious cue-bid. Hmmm. What sort of dreck must partner hold that he refuses to even allow for moderate slam interest from me? Something like this comes to mind: ♠QJxxxx ♥KQx ♦QJx ♣x :blink: Are there hands I would disregard partner's suggestion we not explore slam? Absolutely. This ain't it. Pass 4♠.

1. 2♠ 2. 3♣ (then 4♦) 3. 3♠ 4. 2♠ or Pass (which way is the wind blowing today?) 5. 3♠

I intend to Jump-Shift into 2♠ :blink:

----"sigh" about sums it up.

FYP

Open 1♣ :blink:

Definitely exploring slam. Undiscussed, I bid 3♠, which should be a forcing ♥ raise. If agreed, I prefer 3♠ to agree ♥ and show undisclosed shortage. 4♣ agrees trump with no shortage, requests Q-bids. 4♦ is RKC. Modified Baze

The thought would not cross my mind. I have described my hand. If partner wanted to go slamming, he could have initiated a slam conversation. He didn't.

At the risk of a mini thread hijack, I would be curious to read what ideas--specifically--that you wrote back then, that you no longer agree with. Though it has been awhile since I read your reverses post, I have referred others to it often as a good starting point in understanding reverses. Please update your pinned post with your current thinking! Thanks Mike! :D

This may not make.

1NT - 2♣ 2♠ - 3♥1 3♠2 - 4♦3 4NT - 5♠ 6♣4 - 7♠5 1. Agrees ♠'s, shortage in unnamed suit 2. Where is your shortage? 3. ♥ shortage 4. Got the ♣Q? 5. Sure do, and the ♦Q --- Oh what the heck!

♠8

The “dreaded booklet” is SAYC and SAYC is the “dreaded booklet.” They are one and the same. Who wrote the “dreaded booklet?” Who cares? It matters not. The FACT that the “ACBL SAYC System Booklet” on the ACBL website is what defines SAYC is incontrovertible. Acknowledging this FACT is easy. All you need to do is type it. One more post. Short. Simple. That’s all. Admitting you are wrong does not make you a bad person. It does not make you ignorant or stupid. We all have our own areas of ignorance. Hopefully, by having an open mind, a willingness to learn, and the innate intelligence to assimilate new information, we eliminate them. This area, what is and is not SAYC, is your area of ignorance. What is especially disconcerting, and painfully apparent is, you have willfully chosen to continue your ignorance. You refuse to acknowledge the evidence before you. And you continue, through your cantankerous diatribe, to insist in your infallibility. That reeks of a closed mind and displays a level of belligerence generally found in children. You have been exposed.

SAYC and "this miserable booklet" are not mutually exclusive. They are the same thing. That appears to be the source of your confusion. :blink: Though it was before I began playing bridge, my research seems to indicate that SAYC was born in 1988. Those more "experienced" than I am may correct me on this point.